If people really cared about water usage, they'd be trying to shut down golf courses instead of data centers.
The difference here is that data centers are both economically and environmentally extractive. People in the community, or at least in the surrounding area, will play golf there. Data centers are purely extractive, and that's why they have become so galvanizing. It's transferring probably the only real asset these communities have left, their open spaces, directly to the elite.
please, tell me more
> people in the community, or at least in the surrounding area, will play golf there
going to go out on a limb here and guess that net-net, a datacenter provides more benefits to a broader spectrum of society than a golf course does.
What is the exact value proposition of AI as it exists right now for the average person who lives where these things are being built? They don't even get jobs. With golf, they can enjoy the outdoors and escape a little bit.
The golf park isn't even the best natural-adjacent use of the space.
A regular park or a trail will service a significantly larger portion of the population than a private property that transfers wealth from the community to a single person or corporation.
Well, you're right to be uncertain. After they're built, once the crews that built them move on to the next one, they don't even bother to keep the lights on. They might hire private security guards to patrol the exterior, but that's hardly an infusion of capital into the community.
> The golf park isn't even the best natural-adjacent use of the space.
> A regular park or a trail will service a significantly larger portion of the population than a private property that transfers wealth from the community to a single person or corporation.
Ok. Then they can decide to build a nature trail instead. The local community should make the decision and not be coerced because someone from the coasts thinks that they're a minor annoyance that needs to be lectured on the future of humanity or whatever lessbad rational-du-jore is being peddled.
Is that true locally though? Having a golf course nearby your home is better than the golf course just existing somewhere, at least if you play golf, but that is decidedly not true of data centers. You might benefit from at least some of them existing, but derive very little benefit from having one in your backyard and a lot of potential downsides.
Isn't that the standard NIMBY argument, which ensures nothing ever gets built? Who wants a power plant, or dump near their house? Even if there's some vague local benefit (eg. a dump that benefits the county), you could always make the argument to put it on the other side of the county or whatever.
Its pretty obvious here that people decided datacenters were bad first, then went looking for justifications second.
If you think the current data center installations have problems you want to be addressed, you don't also bring up golf course water usage, farmland water rights, residential lawns, factory runoff, and climate change effects on rainwater. You'd just be distracting from the conversation.
I've not seen a single state where anyone is trying to build a ton of new golf courses. There are around 140 being built in the whole country, and I think the most in any one state is under a dozen in Florida.
There are more than an order of magnitude more data centers under construction with some states having more data centers under constructions than the whole country has golf courses under construction.
I bet if you tried to build 2-300 golf courses at the same time in one state it would become an issue for state level politicians.
Look, just say what you mean. If you think "AI is BAD" just say that, don't try to couch it in some disingenuous argument about water usage or climate change.
The person I was replying to was trying to make inferences from the fact that data centers have become a statewide issue in some states but golf courses have not.
My point is that because golf courses are being built at a much lower rate than data centers they remain just local issues in most places. Try to build 200 golf courses at the same time in some state and I bet you'll see that get statewide attention.
Even with the massive data center build out, existing golf courses today use more water than all projected data centers globally are expected to use in 2030.
The water issue is completely farcical.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
Also, the "pollution" from data centers is just "major construction project temporarily disrupts water table" not "facility is pumping random chemicals into the water".
That is to say, nothing about next door neighbors to a major construction project getting mud out of their well for a little while is unique to datacenters.
I did not say that golf courses are pollution free, but there is many degrees of magnitude difference between the mere possibility of illnesses becoming more common around golf courses and data centres that have to pay millions in fines as they are not following the rules.
I feel like you're constructing straw men arguments here despite the very obvious polluting behaviour of datacentres.
The hate for data centers is a liberal thing, not a "leftist" take. Although, being against golf courses should be supported by everyone. Golf courses suck.
My personal criticism of data centers is mostly regulatory failure. The tech companies are choosing random ass states and stealing land from poor farmers instead of the traditional data center states like Virginia mostly because of tax breaks. The local government is just as if not more responsible for the issues with data centers. It's easy however to just point fingers at big tech instead of he underlying market failures in a lot of the states. The traditional data center states almost always have a supply of clean energy and water with a proper regulatory framework.